Fred vs Moore -- The Smackdown

Michael Moore has challenged Fred Thompson to a debate on Cuba and the Cuban healthcare system. Well, Fred put out a video response - 38 seconds of cool, refined smackdown.

See the response HERE.

More and more, I'm thinking that Fred may be that clear-talking, non-triangulating candidate to inspire America. It is 18 months til the presidential election, and a lot can happen in that time. Thompson is in a position to make this an election on just what America is about.

Right now, I want these "debates" to winnow out the obvious chaff in the candidate ranks. I'm not going to make any kind of final endorsement, nor will I be a one-issue voter (aside from national security, which should be a given for all candidates). But I want someone who will be an inspiring candidate, not the safest one.

Word Substitution

I was listening to Mitch Berg and Ed Morrissey (from Shot in the Dark and Captain's Quarters respectively) this morning. They have a great radio program from the Twin Cities every Saturday as part of the Northern Alliance Radio Network.

During the show, they discussed the situation at Tufts University and the university's Islam Awareness week. A thought crossed my mind, and in the interest of sharing truths about modern language, I give it to you now.

Every time you hear the term "awareness" spoken/written/issued by a liberal or liberal organization, merely substitute the words "whitewashed praise and promotion". So we get the following:

Islam awareness week becomes Islam whitewashed praise and promotion week.

Womens awareness week becomes Womens whitewashed praise and promotion week.

Black awareness month becomes Black whitewashed praise and promotion month.

Hispanic awareness month becomes Hispanic whitewashed praise and promotion month.

You get the picture.

Thinking alike

In a previous post, I talked about the need for a straight-talking candidate who can clearly articulate a vision for America.

Seems that the Draft Fred Thompson website has similar thoughts:

We want a nominee who can carry a vision of a great America with clarity and conviction and who can translate this vision into meaningful public policy.

Fred Thompson’s record is solid. He does not waffle. He knows where he stands because he is sure of what he believes.

I won't say that Fred would be the perfect candidate. But think back to the 1980 election. GHW Bush was the "resume candidate" with all the right "background". Reagan was the "actor turned politician". In the primaries, who gave the vision for America, won the nomination, and later won the presidency?

The more this goes on, the more viable he looks - if only in comparison to the mediocrity that clogs this field.

Three Questions

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton visited a primary school in Ithaca, New York, to talk about her job as a senator. After her talk, she offered question time. One little boy put up his hand and the Senator asked his name. “Kenneth,’ he replied. “And what is your question, Kenneth?” she asked.

Kenneth answered, “I have three questions:
“First…..whatever happened to your medical health care plan?
Second…..why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?
And third…..whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?”

Just then the bell rang for recess. Senator Clinton informed the kiddies that they would continue after recess. When they resumed, she asked, “Okay, where were we? Oh, that’s right…..question time. Who has a question?”

A different little boy raised his hand; Hillary pointed him out and asked him his name.
“Larry,” he replied. “And what is your question?” continued the Senator.

“I have five questions,” he answered,
“First…..whatever happened to your medical health care plan?
Second…..why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?
Third…..whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?
Fourth…..why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?
And fifth…..what happened to Kenneth?”

Stolen from The Confabulator.

Fear is the last refuge....

For a failing candidacy. Taking a page from many campaigns here in America, a candidate for the presidency of France played the fear card:

Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday that France risks violence and brutality if her opponent right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday's presidential election.

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told RTL radio.

"It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won)," she said.

As I noted in a previous post, it's the hope for a better future that truly resonates with an electorate. Royal hasn't been able to articulate a new future for France, continuing to rehash and update the old government statism of the past. Facing defeat at the polls, the only tool left is a last-minute gasp to try to instill fear.

We've seen this here in America with the accusations that blacks will be killed, grandmothers will freeze in the winter, and gays will be systematically persecuted -- all if a Republican is elected. Nice to see that the left has a multi-cultural playbook that gets used in both America and in Europe. I just wish they would find some other argument to try to advance their agenda.

Thanks to Reuters for the report.

Verizon does the right thing

UPDATE: It seems that Verizon may still be sponsoring Akon through his association with the Gwen Stefani tour, which is being sponsored by Verizon. No word whether V is going to push for his removal from the tour. So hold off on buying those new mobile phones.
END UPDATE

I was about to post about Verizon's arrangement with Akon, when Verizon released the following:

Verizon decided this week to end its support and sponsorship of Akon.

Jim Gerace

Vice President, Corporate Communications
Verizon Wireless

Apparently enough people complained about Verizon's business arrangements to make it an issue worth addressing. Now comes the tricky part....will Verizon keep to the straight and narrow down the road?

I'll go back to considering Verizon - they just laid fiber cable in front of my house this week. Time for even faster internet??

H/T to Michelle Malkin for the news.

Candidate's debate

Much is being written on who won, who lost, who gained ground, who looks good, who needs a new haircut....the usual stuff. My quick view - I wasn't impressed. Too much posturing, too much CYA.

I worry that the Republicans in the field are trying to out-nuance the Democrats, long the masters of such double-talk. Following the polls and trying to appeal to ever-increasing subsectors of the electorate is a losing strategy. Catering to (and throwing money at) special interest blocs is the modus operandi of the Democratic party, and any attempt to emulate that direction is a fool's choice.

What this country needs is a candidate who will speak what he truly believes, lay down a vision for the country's future, and promise to always put the interests of the nation, and thus its people, first. Straight talk (not the Express), no bull, no nuances, no hedging. Here is where I stand, why it is right, and what I am going to do. Figure out how to say it in a few clear and concise paragraphs, then never stop repeating those principles. If the people can't know what you stand for, you'll never win their hearts or their votes.

Reagan did just that. He wasn't a wonk with tons of statistics, or a policy paper on everything, or a new program to throw money out the door. He had something far more compelling - an articulated vision that gave hope and promise for the future. And he delivered.

I'm still looking for that in a declared candidate on the Republican side.

From the mouth of an Iraqi

The Washington Post published a great piece today. An Iraqi write on why the USA, and the world, should not give up on Iraq. Some of the column:

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Read the whole article and ask yourself why the front pages aren't saying these things. Why does it only get one column on page A23?

H/T to AJ Strata over at The Strata-Sphere.

We Win, They Lose

You know, it's as simple as that. And if you think that's the way it should be, head on over to We Win, They Lose and sign the petition. Make your voice heard that there is no alternative to victory.

The petition:

To: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Democrat Leader

Congress has passed and President Bush has vetoed H.R. 1591, the Iraq Surrender Act of 2007.

This legislation, which you worked to pass, sets a timetable for surrender. It pulls the rug out from under our troops. That is shameful and wrong.

Your actions have already emboldened the enemy. Violent jihadists now know that the elected leadership of Congress would undermine the troops by holding their funding hostage to demands for surrender.

This Congress would bring us back to the dark days of the 1970s, when the world doubted our staying power. Except only much worse. Withdraw in April 2008, and on May 1, Iraq becomes an unchecked den of terrorism at the heart of the Middle East -- a new base for the same people that struck our homeland on September 11th.

I stand with our troops. I stand for victory. I support the President's veto and will urge my representatives to vote to sustain it.

There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, they lose.

At the Bar

A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender. The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies "150".

The robot proceeds to make conversation about world economic factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biochemistry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nanotechnology, and sexual proclivities.

The customer is very impressed & thinks, "This is really cool." He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink.

Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?"

The man responds, "about 100."

Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time about football, NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favorite fast foods, guns, and women's body parts.

Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one more test. He heads out & returns.

The robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"

The man replies, "Er, 50, I think."

The robot says... real slowly, "So... is.. your... party... gonna... nominate... Hillary... for...president ???"

A Dr. Seuss ditty for our Senator Harry

Mike at Flopping Aces penned this classic:

Harry Reid: Where Will You Fight Al Queda?

You won't fight Al Queda in Iraq. Will you fight them in Iran? Would you fight them in Afghanistan?

Will you fight them here or there? Will you fight them anywhere?

Would you fight Al Queda if they bomb our trains? Would you fight Al Queda if they hijack our planes?

Will you fight them like a mouse? Or will you just fight the White House?

Would you fight them with General Petraeus? Or will you just let Al Queda slay us?

Where will you fight Al Queda Harry Reid?

Will you fight them in our malls? Would you fight them in school halls?

Will you fight Al Queda at all? Or just let the President's plans stall?

Would you put our heads on the chopping block? And let Al Queda lop them off?

Are you here to play political games? Do you not care if the country goes up in flames?

Will you gut the Patriot Act and wait until we next get whacked?

Have you gone so far 'round the bend that you cannot give Iraq a chance to mend?

When will you learn? What will you do? How will you keep us safe? Do you have a clue?

Answer us please as time grows short. Al Queda is coming and we need a report. Will you fight them now or later? Will you wait until the cost is greater?

The full post has links to Dr. Seuss illustrations from World War II. One of those is here:

Just as appropriate today as it was 65 years ago.

Quote of the Day

From Techography:

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed Pharmacist."

I gotta like that one.

Germany in 1945 - Iraq in 2007

Varifrank has an excellent post, entitled Mission Accomplished.

Rather than try to paraphrase it, or short quotes, go and read the whole thing. It will be worth your time.

Guess it's time to add Varifrank to the blog listing.